Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Karsten M. Self
kmself at ix.netcom.com
Tue Sep 25 18:27:17 UTC 2001
on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:59:10AM -0400, Greg London (greglondon at oaktech.com) wrote:
> It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then.
> The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license
> seems to fall short.
The MIT license allows for distribution of source. This is in
compliance with the OSD. You raise a reasonable but small point.
The OSD is used to ceritfy licenses, not distributions under a license.
However, the language of section two speaks to the program and
distribution of same, under a license. It seems to me that either the
OSD should restrict itself to discussing licenses, or qualify licenses
which may be used in a proprietary sense by discussing a qualifying
The reason for this confusion, I suspect, is the OSD's origin as the
DFSG: the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The DFSG is the guiding
principle that governs inclusion of packages within the core Debian
distribution. As such, it applies to distribution of programs, which is
to include the interaction of license on actual distribution.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product
is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet
without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which
a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated
source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output
of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
2. Source Code
The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as
compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with
source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the
source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost --
preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access
restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred
form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately
obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as
the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. For
licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD
Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the
software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of
source as described in this paragraph.
All other sections of the OSD speak in terms of "the license" or "the
rights attached to the program". Section 2 is the odd man out.
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss